2 Dems open to 'spotters' helping to fight ISIL

President Barack Obama has ruled out sending a large ground force to the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, but support is growing in Congress for dispatching small numbers of U.S. troops near the front lines of combat against the militant group.

Two key congressional Democrats leading the debate for a congressional resolution authorizing the ISIL campaign said on Sunday that they favor giving Obama permission to deploy specialized soldiers, including so-called “spotters” who can call in highly specific coordinates for airstrikes.

Story Continued Below

“Congress may be willing to endure small numbers of spotters or Special Forces” fighting alongside Iraqi and Kurdish troops, said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “I’m open to that.”

“I’ve become convinced that this notion of having folks to help with spotting and targeting is probably appropriate,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Kaine and Schiff spoke to POLITICO on the sidelines of the Halifax International Security Forum held in Canada over the weekend, which was attended by a large vongressional delegation and where the emerging U.S. strategy toward ISIL was a central theme.

The two Democrats’ comments echoed recent suggestions by current and former Obama administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who have said that the next phase in the fight against ISIL may require a more active American presence on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Earlier this month, Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that “we’re certainly considering” the idea of a specialized ground contingent, although Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said a week ago that he has not received such a recommendation from Dempsey.

Kaine, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, have each introduced resolutions granting congressional authorization for the ongoing U.S. campaign against ISIL. President Obama called on Congress to pass such a resolution in September, though the White House has not submitted a proposal to the Hill.

The language of Kaine’s resolution, introduced in September, prohibits ground troops — with exceptions only for search-and-rescue teams and counterterrorism forces pursuing high value targets. Kaine now says that he is open to slightly broader language allowing some U.S. troops alongside local forces, however.

But the debate may have to wait. Sources from both parties in Halifax called it unlikely that Congress will pass an ISIL resolution before adjourning for the year. “Which is astounding to me, and an abdication of congressional responsibility,” Schiff said.

If Congress doesn’t act this year, it could be nearly spring before it gets around to a resolution — more than six months since the first U.S. strikes against ISIL on Aug. 8.

The White House says the ISIL campaign already has a legal basis in Congress’s 2001 authorization for use of military force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as a 2002 AUMF allowing the invasion of Iraq. But Obama said on Sept. 10 that he welcomed congressional support “to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.”

But Americans may not be entirely united on the details. A new resolution would present Congress with several thorny questions, including what limits to place on the size and nature of any troop deployment.

Some U.S. officials speak of a “B.O.G. problem” — namely, the confusion about what the phrase “boots on the ground” actually refers to. Many U.S. officials draw a distinction between small contingents of front-line Special Forces on the one hand, and, on the other, combat brigades numbering in the thousands like those that fought the Iraq War. No one in Congress has proposed the latter option for Iraq and Syria today.

But some experts say the former option — small contingents embedded with local forces battling ISIL — is inevitable. “It’s clear we’re going to need front-line troops because of the complexity of the fight,” said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who consulted with U.S. officials in Halifax.

Another sticky issue is how Congress would define the current fight and whether to authorize potential strikes on Syrian regime forces if necessary. For instance, Schiff said, the U.S. may need the ability to defend the Syrian rebel forces it plans to train and equip to join the battle against ISIL and, ultimately, Syria’s leader, Bashar Assad

“We’re not going to sit back and let Assad barrel bomb them,” Schiff said, referring to a crude explosive device Syrian regime forces have employed against rebels and civilians.

Obama’s National Security Council has recently begun reviewing its strategy within Syria’s borders, including how the campaign against ISIL intersects with Obama’s stated goal of a political settlement for Syria’s civil war that would remove Assad from power.

Tabler warned that any attempt by Congress to spell out U.S. strategy in Syria would be perilous, given the fluid nature of a raging civil war with shifting groups and alliances.

At the same time, Obama would likely welcome Congress taking more ownership of the fight.

Ultimately, however, he may have to. The last two efforts in Congress to authorize military action were failures. The House voted down a June 2011 resolution approving airstrikes for Libya, and Obama asked Congress not to vote on a plan to strike Syria in 2013 when it was headed for a likely defeat.

“The president is deeply concerned that a Congress this dysfunctional won’t be capable of producing an AUMF that he can sign,” Schiff said.